W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > October 2005

Re: [PORT] new editor's working draft of SKOS Core Vocab Spec

From: Mikael Nilsson <mini@nada.kth.se>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:30:11 +0200
Message-ID: <43497DD3.4080101@nada.kth.se>
To: Stella Dextre Clarke <sdclarke@lukehouse.demon.co.uk>
CC: tiago.murakami@itau.com.br, "'Miles, AJ \(Alistair\)'" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, public-esw-thes@w3.org

Stella Dextre Clarke wrote:
> I share the reservations expressed by Tiago and Sue Ellen Wright. My
> worry is that a jack of all trades tends to be master of none. Trying to
> meet everyone's objectives with one tool may reduce the effectiveness of
> the tool for the core jobs it should be designed for.

I must say I do not share your worries, and for a simle reason - SKOS is 
an enabling technology, not a policy standard. SKOS allows for the 
*expression* of certain kinds of information structures - but it wisely 
avoids policy questions of the kind:

* how permanent/controlled should terms be?
* how disjoint should terms be?
* how should vocabularies be revised?


SKOS will let you use the policy that fits your use case. Saying that 
SKOS would fail because it allows too many scenarios would be similar to 
claiming XML is doomed to failure because it allows many kinds of 
validation, support different forms of extensibility, etc. Just as each 
XML language would specify what kinds of extensions are allowed, each 
SKOS concept scheme will specify what policy rules it follows. It's just 
a technology.

So I do agree that folksonomies, at least the kind where "categories" 
are more that just plain keywords, could/should use SKOS, and SKOS 
should support that (through not caring about policy).


Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Received on Sunday, 9 October 2005 20:30:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:06 UTC